IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Reserved on : 21.03.2025

Pronounced on : 08.04.2025

FAO-1325-2017 (O&M)

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. …. Appellant

V/S

CHARU SHARMA AND ORS. …. Respondents

AND

FAO-4799-2017 (O&M)

CHARU SHARMA …. Appellant

V/S

RAM KUMAR AND ORS. …. Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present : Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate

for the appellant in FAO-1325-2017

and respondent No.3 in FAO-4799-2017.

Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate and

Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate

for respondent No.1 in FAO-1325-2017

and for the appellant in FAO-4799-2017.

None for respondent No.2 in FAO-1325-2017 and

none for respondent No.1 in FAO-4799-2017.

Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG Haryana

for respondent No.3 in FAO-1325-2017

and for respondent No.2 in FAO-4799-2017.

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -2-

ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present order shall dispose off the above noted two appeals

being FAO-1325-2017 preferred by the Insurance Company, namely, The

New India Assurance Company Ltd. and FAO-4799-2017 preferred by the

claimant, namely, Charu Sharma, challenging the award dated 23.11.2016

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). The parties are being referred to as the

Insurance Company, the claimant and the owner and the driver of the

offending vehicle for the sake of clarity.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the claimant -

Charu Sharma - who was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident and

had been appointed as a Law Researcher in the Punjab and Haryana High

Court at a monthly emolument of ₹30,000 (rupees thirty thousand) met with

an accident on 20.09.2013 at about 12:00 pm near Light Point, Sector-20

Chandigarh. The case as set up in the claim petition was that on 20.09.2013

the claimant was coming from Sector-37 to Sector-20 on her Activa Scooty

bearing registration No.CH-04-E-2878 after getting herself enrolled with the

Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Sector-37, Chandigarh. When she

reached near the Labour Chowk, she stopped her Activa Scooty at a red-light

signal at the roundabout of Sectors 20, 21, 33, and 34. When the signal

turned green and as soon as she was about to proceed, her Activa Scooty was

hit from behind and the claimant lost her balance and fell on the road along

with the Activa Scooty. Meanwhile, the offending bus bearing registration

No.HR-45-B-1874 came from behind, which was being driven rashly and

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -3-

negligently and ran over the claimant along with her Activa Scooty. It was

further averred that the claimant was dragged along with her Activa Scooty

for a distance of about 100 meters. On seeing this, the people around raised a

hue and cry. On seeing this, the bus driver stopped however, the claimant

had by then sustained serious injuries and had lost her consciousness. The

driver of the bus fled. It was averred that the accident took place due to the

composite negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle as the bus was

being driven in a rash and negligent manner.

3. On notice, the driver of the bus filed his written statement

raising various preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the claim

petition, cause of action and denied that the offending bus bearing

registration No.HR-45-B-1874 was ever involved in the accident. He also

denied any personal knowledge of the accident and stated that the claimant

was at fault as she was driving the Activa Scooty rashly and negligently and

she was hit by another vehicle. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, the

owner of the offending vehicle, raised preliminary objections regarding the

claimant not having approached the Court with clean hands and having

concealed true and material facts. It was further the stand taken that the

claimant had stated before the Police, while lodging FIR No.549 dated

24.09.2013, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. Since it

was stated that there was no negligence on the part of the driver, the

claimant was not entitled to any compensation. On merits the facts regarding

the occurrence of the accident were denied for want of knowledge. The

Insurance Company also filed its written statement raising various

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -4-

preliminary objections regarding the claim petition being vague, incomplete

and not disclosing any cause of action. The factum of the accident was

denied. It was further averred that the driver was not driving the said vehicle

and was not having a valid licence. The vehicle also did not have a fitness

certificate, route permit, registration certificate, insurance policy etc.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues

were framed :

1. Whether claimant received injuries in a

motor vehicular accident which was caused due to

rash and negligent driving of bus No.HR-45-B-

1874 which was being driven by respondent No.1 ?

OPP

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to

compensation on account of injuries received by

her in a motor vehicular accident, if so to what

extent and from whom ? OPP

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a

valid driving licence at the time of the accident?

OPR3

4. Whether respondent No.1 was not having

valid fitness certificate, RC, route permit and

insurance policy at the time of the accident ? OPR3

5. Relief.

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -5-

5. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties,

held that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving

of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal awarded the following

compensation to the claimant :

Sr. No. Heads of claim Amount awarded

1. Medical expenses ₹18,820

2. Loss of income past and future (₹2,55,000 + ₹21,60,000) =

₹24,15,000

3. Loss of amenities ₹50,000

4. Pain and sufferings ₹1,00,000

5. Better diet ₹1,00,000

6. Attendant ₹48,000

7. Loss of better opportunity for

matrimonial match

₹2,00,000

8. Suffering of financial loss for

procuring four-wheeler

₹1,00,000

Total ₹30,31,820

Interest @ 6% p.a. if paid within two

months and if not paid within

two months, penal interest @

12% p.a. would be applicable.

Aggrieved by the same, both the Insurance Company as well as

the claimant have filed FAO-1325-2017 and FAO-4799-2017 respectively.

6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend

that the author of the FIR in the present case was the claimant herself and in

the FIR registered on 24.09.2013 (Ex.P-5) it had specifically been stated that

there was no fault of the driver of the bus. It is further the contention that

even in the DDR (Ex.R-2) it was not stated that the bus was at fault. The

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -6-

learned counsel would further contend that since the FIR was being relied

upon for proving the accident, the contents of the FIR ought to have been

looked into as the same was recorded on the statement of the claimant

herself and once it was stated in the FIR that the driver of the offending bus

was not at fault, the claim petition could not have been allowed in favour of

the claimant. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the

Insurance Company that in the absence of having impleaded the driver and

the owner of the vehicle which is stated to have hit the Activa Scooty of the

claimant causing her to fall, the Tribunal erred in holding the Insurance

Company liable. Learned counsel has also challenged the award on the

quantum of compensation awarded. Learned counsel states that the claimant

had not suffered any functional disability and therefore the amount awarded

is excessive. It is further the contention that the liability of a new four-

wheeler vehicle has also been imposed on the insurance company.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant has contended

that in case the evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents of

the FIR, in such a case the evidence recorded by the Tribunal has to be given

weightage over the FIR. It is further the contention that in the present case

the claimant had stepped into the witness box and had led cogent evidence

that the driver of the offending vehicle had come from behind and the bus

drove over the claimant and that she was dragged for about 100 meters

resulting in grievous injuries. It was further contended that during the cross

examination, no suggestion was given to the claimant that the bus did not

come from behind and was standing at the red light. Learned counsel has

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -7-

further pointed out that the bus was taken to the Police Station from the

place of occurrence and was released on sapurdari. Learned counsel relied

upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National

Insurance Company Limited V/s Chamundeswari & Ors. [2021 ACJ

2558 (SC)], Halappa V/s Malik Sab [2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 279] and

Ramamurthy V/s National Insurance Co. Limited [Civil Appeal

No.4612-2017 decided on 30.03.2017] in support of his argument. Learned

counsel for the claimant further contended that since it was a case of

composite negligence, the claimant was at liberty to sue any or all of the

tortfeasors and that her claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground that

one of the tortfeasors was not impleaded as a party. It is further the

contention that since it was a case of composite negligence, non-impleading

of the owner and the driver of the vehicle, which initially hit the Activa

Scooty of the claimant, would not be fatal. In support of his argument, the

learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Pawan Kumar & Anr. V/s M/s Harikishan Dass Mohan Lal & Ors.

[2014 (2) RCR (Civil) 764] and Khenyei V/s New India Assurance

Company & Ors. [2015 (9) SCC 273]. On quantum, the learned counsel for

the claimant relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

cases of Abhimanyu Partap Singh V/s Namita Sekhon & Anr. [2022

ACJ 1995], Hari Om V/s National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.

[2023 ACJ 595] and Erudhaya Priya V/s State Express Transport

Corporation Ltd. [2020 ACJ 2159] on the proposition that despite

continuing in the job after the accident, yet the claimants were awarded loss

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -8-

of future income. Learned counsel has further contended that the amounts

awarded under the head loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects and

pain and suffering are also on the lower side.

8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company that there is a different version given by the claimant herself in the

FIR and in the claim petition and hence the claim petition ought to have

been rejected cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Chamundeswari (supra) which was a case where there were three

occupants of the car which had met with an accident. One of the passengers

had died and the other two passengers were injured. In the said case also the

witness, who was also an injured, had given the statement before the Police

and had also appeared before the Tribunal. Their Lordships, while holding

that the weightage has to be given to the evidence recorded before the

Tribunal over the contents of the FIR, held as under :

‘8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW-1 as

well as PW-3 that the Eicher van which was going in

front of the car, has taken a sudden right turn without

giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW-1 &

PW-3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal

evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High

Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only

due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to

be noted that PW-1 herself travelled in the very car and

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -9-

PW-3, who has given statement before the police, was

examined as eye-witness. In view of such evidence on

record, there is no reason to give weightage to the

contents of the First Information Report. If any evidence

before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the

First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded

before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the

contents of the First Information Report. In the judgment,

relied on by the appellant's counsel in the case of

Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla

and Others, 2007 (13) SCC 476, this Court has held that

proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver

of the vehicle, is therefore, sine qua non for maintaining

an application under Section 166 of the Act. In the said

judgment, it is held that the factum of an accident could

also be proved from the First Information Report. In the

judgment in the case of Nishan Singh and Others v.

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2018 (6) SCC 765,

this Court has held, on facts, that the car of the appellant

therein, which crashed into truck which was proceeding

in front of the same, was driven negligently by not

maintaining sufficient distance as contemplated under

Road Regulations, framed under Motor Vehicles Act,

1988. Whether driver of the vehicle was negligent or not,

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -10-

there cannot be any straitjacket formula. Each case is

judged having regard to facts of the case and evidence on

record. Having regard to evidence in the present case on

hand, we are of the view that both the judgments relied

on by the learned counsel for the appellant, would not

render any assistance in support of his case’.

Similar view was taken in the case of Halappa (supra) which

reads as under :

‘…………………..The High Court has proceeded to

reverse the finding of the Tribunal purely on the basis

that the FIR which was lodged on the complaint of the

appellant contained a version which was at variance with

the evidence which emerged before the Tribunal. The

Tribunal had noted the admission of RW1 in the course

of his cross-examination that the insurer had maintained

a separate file in respect of the accident. The insurer did

not produce either the file or the report of the

investigator in the case. Moreover, no independent

witness was produced by the insurer to displace the

version of the incident as deposed to by the appellant and

by PW 3. The cogent analysis of the evidence by the

Tribunal has been displaced by the High Court without

considering material aspects of the evidence on the

record. The High Court was not justified in holding that

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -11-

the Tribunal had arrived at a finding of fact without

applying its mind to the documents produced by the

claimant or that it had casually entered a finding of fact.

On the contrary, we find that the reversal of the finding

by the High Court was without considering the material

aspects of the evidence which justifiably weighed with the

Tribunal. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding

of the High Court is manifestly erroneous and that the

finding of fact by the Tribunal was correct’.

Further in the case of Ramamurthy (supra) it was held as

under :

‘9. The High Court, in appeal, took into account the

F.I.R. filed by the injured pedestrian (Ramesh), on which

reliance was placed by the claimant to prove the

accident. While relying on the said F.I.R., the High Court

took the view that as the appellant-claimant himself has

relied on the F.I.R., the entire version of the F.I.R. must

be accepted. Inasmuch as in the F.I.R. filed by the

injured pedestrian (Ramesh) rash and negligent driving

was alleged against the appellant-claimant, the High

Court took the view that the appellant-claimant had

admitted the contents of the F.I.R., including the

allegation of rash and negligent driving contained

therein.

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -12-

10. We fail to see as to how the High Court could come

to the aforesaid conclusion and/or placed reliance on the

F.I.R. as a substantive piece of evidence. The facts

discussed by the learned Tribunal in coming to its

conclusion, as noted above, were also not adverted to by

the High Court in the impugned order’.

Though it was stated by the claimant that the driver was not at

fault however before the Tribunal a categoric statement was made by her

that while she was waiting at the red light, she was hit from behind by a

vehicle which resulted in her falling along with her Activa Scooty and the

bus came from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent

manner, and drove over the claimant dragging her to quite an extent and

stopping only when the passersby made a hue and cry. The injured had

appeared as PW-1 before the Tribunal and had tendered her evidence by way

of an affidavit (Ex.PW-1/A). Nothing could be elicited in the cross

examination from the said witness to even remotely suggest that the accident

did not occur in the manner as stated in the claim petition. The driver, in the

present case, had filed a separate written statement in which he clearly

denied the factum of the accident however in his cross examination, while

appearing as RW-1, he admitted the factum of the accident. It has also come

in his cross examination that the DDR (Ex.R-2) was written by the Police on

21.09.2023 in the Police Station in the presence of the driver and further

admitted that at the time of the lodging of the DDR, the claimant herself was

not present at the Police Station. Strangely, the DDR, which according to the

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -13-

driver was lodged at the Police Station a day after the incident, bears the

signature of the claimant whose right arm came under the tyre of the

offending bus. The law on this point is well settled, as noticed above, that in

case of any variance in the contents of the FIR and in the evidence led before

the Tribunal, weightage has to be given to the evidence led before the

Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has not been able

to point out to any evidence on the record to show that the accident did not

take place in the manner as suggested except for heavily relying upon the

version in the DDR and the FIR. In view of the above, the argument of the

learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the claim petition ought to

have been dismissed, in view of the variation in the stand taken before the

Tribunal and in the FIR, is rejected.

10. The second argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company that since the driver and the owner of the vehicle, which was

alleged to have hit the Activa Scooty of the claimant resulting in her falling

down, was not impleaded as a party and hence the claim petition was bad for

mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties also deserves to be rejected.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the distinction between the

principles of composite and contributing negligence, in the case of Pawan

Kumar (supra) held as under :

‘6. The distinction between the principles of composite

and contributory negligence has been dealt with in

Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort (Chapter 21) (15th Edition,

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -14-

1998). It would be appropriate to notice the following

passage from the said work :

"WHERE two or more people by their independent

breaches of duty to the plaintiff cause him to suffer

distinct injuries, no special rules are required, for

each tortfeasor is liable for the damage which he

caused and only for that damage. Where, however,

two or more breaches of duty by different persons

cause the plaintiff to suffer a single injury the

position is more complicated. The law in such a

case is that the plaintiff is entitled to sue all or any

of them for the full amount of his loss, and each is

said to be jointly and severally liable for it. This

means that special rules are necessary to deal with

the possibilities of successive actions in respect of

that loss and of claims for contribution or

indemnity by one tortfeasor against the others. It is

greatly to the plaintiff's advantage to show that

that he has suffered the same, indivisible harm at

the hands of a number of defendants for he thereby

avoids the risk, inherent in cases where there are

different injuries, of finding that one defendant is

insolvent (or uninsured) and being unable to

execute judgment against him. The same picture is

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -15-

not, of course, so attractive from the point of view

of the solvent defendant, who may end up carrying

full responsibility for a loss in the causing of which

he played only a partial, even secondary role.

………….

The question of whether there is one injury can be

a difficult one. The simplest case is that of two

virtually simultaneous acts of negligence, as where

two drivers behave negligently and collide,

injuring a passenger in one of the cars or a

pedestrian, but there is no requirement that the

acts be simultaneous. ........’

Further in the case of Khenyei (supra) it was held as under :

‘…………… What emerges from the aforesaid discussion

is as follows :

(i) In the case of composite negligence,

plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one

of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire

compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is

joint and several.

ii) In the case of composite negligence,

apportionment of compensation between two

tortfeasors vis-a-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -16-

permissible. He can recover at his option whole

damages from any of them.

(iii) In case all the joint tortfeasors have been

impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to

the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of

composite negligence of the drivers. However,

determination of the extent of negligence between

the joint tortfeasors is only for the purpose of their

inter se liability so that one may recover the sum

from the other after making whole of payment to

the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied

the liability of the other. In case both of them have

been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of

their negligence has been determined by the

court/tribunal, in main case one joint tort feasor

can recover the amount from the other in the

execution proceedings’.

It is trite that in a case of composite negligence, the claimant is

at liberty to sue any or both the tortfeasors. In the present case the claimant,

who was standing at the red light, was initially hit by a vehicle resulting in

her falling down. The offending bus, which was being driven in a rash and

negligent manner, came from behind and drove over the injured claimant

resulting in grievous injuries. Both were independent breaches of duty to the

plaintiff as both were negligent. There were two breaches of duty by two

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -17-

different persons resulting in injury to the claimant. The claimant in the

present case was entitled to sue all or any of them for the full amount of her

loss and each would be jointly and severally liable for the same. Hence, the

non-impleadment of the driver or the owner of the other vehicle would not

entail dismissal of the claim petition since it was a case of composite

negligence.

11. The third argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company is qua quantum of compensation awarded. It had been contended

by the learned counsel that since no functional disability was suffered by the

claimant, therefore, neither multiplier method could have been applied, nor

future prospects could have been added. It has further been contended that

an amount of ₹1,00,000 (rupees one lakh) had been awarded towards

financial loss for procuring a four-wheeler also could not have been fastened

on the Insurance Company.

12. In the present case the claimant had filed an application being

CM-3415-CII-2021 in FAO-4799-2017 to bring on record a fresh disability

certificate issued by the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and

Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER, Chandigarh) which shows that the

claimant had suffered Locomotor disability of the right upper limb to the

extent of 29% and that the disability was not likely to improve. PW-4, Dr.

Parmod Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Plastic Surgery,

PGIMER, Chandigarh had stepped into the witness box and had stated that

the claimant had suffered 33% disability (which has now been reduced to

29%) and that she had a crush injury with a right elbow joint and there was

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -18-

significant disability pertaining to the right elbow joint. It was further stated

that she would have problem in tying her collar button and waist string and

that she would have problem in doing over head activities. It had specifically

been stated that the disability was functional disability. The said witness

further stated that due to the injuries there was a decrease sensation in the

ring and little finger and grip strength will be less as compared to the normal

hand. Hence, it cannot be said that the disability suffered by the claimant-

appellant is not a functional disability.

13. The Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo

Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. [2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 404] has held as

under :

“12. In view of the above decisive rulings of this court,

the High Court clearly erred in holding that

compensation for loss of future prospects could not be

awarded. In addition to loss of future earnings (based on

a determination of the income at the time of accident),

the appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of

future prospects, @ 40% (following the Pranay Sethi

principle).

13. The factual narrative discloses that the appellant, a

20-year-old data entry operator (who had studied up to

12th standard) incurred permanent disability, i.e. loss of

his right hand (which was amputated). The disability was

assessed to be 89%. However, the tribunal and the High

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -19-

Court re-assessed the disability to be only 45%, on the

assumption that the assessment for compensation was to

be on a different basis, as the injury entailed loss of only

one arm. This approach, in the opinion of this court, is

completely mechanical and entirely ignores realities.

Whilst it is true that assessment of injury of one limb or

to one part may not entail permanent injury to the whole

body, the inquiry which the court has to conduct is the

resultant loss which the injury entails to the earning or

income generating capacity of the claimant. Thus, loss of

one leg to someone carrying on a vocation such as

driving or something that entails walking or constant

mobility, results in severe income generating impairment

or its extinguishment altogether. Likewise, for one

involved in a job like a carpenter or hairdresser, or

machinist, and an experienced one at that, loss of an

arm, (more so a functional arm) leads to near extinction

of income generation. If the age of the victim is beyond

40, the scope of rehabilitation too diminishes. These

individual factors are of crucial importance which are to

be borne in mind while determining the extent of

permanent disablement, for the purpose of assessment of

loss of earning capacity.”

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -20-

Keeping in view the additional evidence now led by the

claimant herself, her disability is assessed as 29%. It has further come on the

record that the salary of the claimant, at the time of the accident, was

₹32,000 (rupees thirty-two thousand) and she was 25 years of age at that

time. Accordingly, her income is assessed as ₹32,000 (rupees thirty-two

thousand) per month which comes to ₹3,84,000 annually (₹32,000 x 12)

which was subject to deduction of income tax prevailing at the time of the

accident. The income tax for the relevant assessment year was as under :

‘Upto ₹2,00,000 – Nil

₹2,00,000 to ₹ 5,00,000 – 10 per cent’

Accordingly, on the income above ₹2,00,000 (rupees two lakh),

income tax @ 10% is required to be deducted, which comes to ₹18,400.

Thereby the annual income of the claimant-appellant comes out to be

₹3,65,600 (₹3,84,000 - ₹18,400 income tax). A multiplier of ‘17’ would be

applicable in the present case instead of ‘16’ and the claimant would be

entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects instead of 50%.

14. Learned counsel for the claimant had contended that the amount

awarded under the heads loss of amenities and pain and suffering are on the

lower side. The said argument deserves to be accepted. In view thereof, the

amount of ₹1,00,000 awarded under the head pain and suffering is enhanced

to ₹2,00,000 and the amount of ₹50,000 awarded towards loss of amenities

is enhanced to ₹1,00,000. The amounts awarded under the heads attendant

charges of ₹48,000; medical expenses of ₹18,820; better diet of ₹1,00,000

and better opportunity for matrimonial match of ₹2,00,000, are maintained.

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -21-

There is no justification for awarding ₹1,00,000 under the head suffering of

financial loss for procuring a four-wheeler and accordingly the claimant is

held not entitled for the same. However, the claimant is entitled to ₹25,000

towards transportation charges.

15. Accordingly, the reworked compensation, to which the claimant

is entitled to, is as under :

Sr. No. Heads of claim Amount awarded

1. Monthly salary ₹32,000

2. Annual salary [₹32,000 x 12] = ₹3,84,000

3. Less income tax [₹3,84,000 - ₹18,400] = ₹3,65,600

4. Loss of income due to

disability @29%

[₹3,65,600 x 29%] = ₹1,06,024

5. Future prospects @40% [₹1,06,024 + ₹42,410] = ₹1,48,434

6. Multiplier ‘17’ [₹1,48,434 x 17] = ₹25,23,378

7. Medical expenses ₹18,820

8. Better diet ₹1,00,000

9. Attendant ₹48,000

10. Loss of amenities ₹1,00,000

11. Pain and sufferings ₹2,00,000

12. Loss of better opportunity

for matrimonial match

₹2,00,000

13. Transportation ₹25,000

Total ₹32,15,198

16. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount

awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from

the date of filing of the present appeal till the realization of the entire

amount.

FAO-1325-2017 & FAO-4799-2017 -22-

17. In view of the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. [2025 INSC 361], after

calculation of the enhanced amount, the same be transferred by the

Insurance Company in the bank account of the claimant within a period of

six weeks from today. The particulars of the bank account along with the

requisite documents in support thereof shall be furnished by the claimant to

the Insurance company within a period of two weeks from today and needful

shall be done by the Insurance Company after verification thereof within a

period of four weeks thereafter along with up-to-date interest. The

compliance shall be reported by the Bank to the Tribunal concerned.

18. In view of the above discussion, the award passed by the

Tribunal is modified accordingly and both the appeals being FAO-1325-

2017 filed by the Insurance Company and the appeal being FAO-4799-2017

filed by the claimant are disposed off. Pending applications, if any, also

stand disposed off.

08.04.2025 (ALKA SARIN)

Aman Jain JUDGE

NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking

Whether reportable: Yes/No